Hello Everyone,
I just wanted to say I am genuinely excited for this class based
on the brief discussions we have had so far.
Out of our conversation about the homage that was A Kind of
Genius: Herb Sturz and Society’s Toughest Problems, we discussed the
unreliability of Statistics (both Qualitative and Quantitative), whether
someone can truly be non-ideological and the “stakeholders” who supposedly
benefitted from the work of the genius we know as Herb Sturz. Through the
latter speaking topic of stakeholders, we see that the question of who
benefitted from his work would bring unsure and somewhat unflattering answers
about the effects of Sturz’s work. The book never mentions where the
homeless go after they have been cleaned up and the neighborhoods they once
dwelled are no longer affordable to live in. Page 190 exemplifies
the concept of gentrification in the two picture comparisons that referred to
the minority men as derelicts (a problematic term which is reminiscent of when
President Bush called African Americans in New Orleans “refugees” after
Hurricane Katrina). This idea brought me back to when Professor Stein mentioned
in class that with every empire, like the one Herb Sturz has built with Vera,
there is colonization.
I personally was tentative about mentioning the ideas of
gentrification, but after the underlying issues we were able to bring about in
class, I feel like I could have written a much better paper after
Thursday. With this in mind, I will
definitely push myself in my writing to question even the best of examples of
successful initiatives in social justice as Sturz has accomplished.
With that I leave you with a short video that talks about the
setbacks of gentrification that started in the Lower East Side as told by
filmmaker and Brooklyn native, Spike Lee.
-Spencer
20 comments:
It is one of the conventions of the blog that the professors try to hang back for a while so student voices can lead the discussion. But since this is the first week and Spencer, our heroic first poster, might be checking back to see if his post/link could be read/watched, I am writing now to say: yes! Thanks so much for the post, Spencer, and it is always a pleasure to watch Spike (except on the Knicks sideline, where he painfully reminds me of my own dysfunctional relationship to that team).
Well said, Spencer. Indeed, it is definitely important for us to consider the opportunity costs associated with implementing innovative ideas. Though it appears that this case of gentrification occurred as an unintended consequence of urban development, I wonder if there are any mechanisms in place to check the excesses of well-intentioned social entrepreneurs whenever their efforts lead to such externalities. At the time that I began writing college level essays, I was weary of critiquing experts or challenging authority because I previously studied under a different cultural setting. However, I now appreciate the habit of critiquing as a means to further one’s understanding of ideas and possibly improve them. So yes, I join you in your campaign to offer constructive criticisms to the pros!
A dictionary search of author’s word choice, “derelicts” reads: “shamefully negligent in not having done what one should have done.” Using such a word subtly perpetuates the “blame the victim” approach to problems, and this may have grave consequences for the victim. Perhaps we should talk about what these consequences might be. At this point, I must confess that I feel ashamed for using that word several times in my essay. I even used the word “bums.”
Thanks for an insightful first post.
James
Hello, All. Just by reading a couple of posts, I can tell that last week's class was a very insightful one and I am sad to have missed it. Actually, while reading the book, I was curious as to why the author, one evidently familiar with Sturz and his ideology, would use the term "derelict". I looked up the word to confirm the definition and it read: "a person without a home, job, or property", which is a much more "progressive" perspective of the term. Unfortunately, though, I too used the word a number of times in my essay.
While reading, I too was curious about the effects of urbanization on a community and it seemed that because the changes in Times Square were so drastic, gentrification was almost a given, unfortunately.
James, I also often find myself hesitant to criticize scholars and experts, and even felt a bit resistant while writing my essay. But as you said, it is important to remember that criticism is a learning process for both parties involved.
Spencer, thanks for a thought-provoking post and video. I feel a little less bad about missing last week's class and am even more excited about the coming ones!
I was also impacted by Prof. Stein’s question of what happened to the homeless after going through the Bowery Project. In fact, Prof. Waterston’s comment on whether homelessness was just “hidden behind another social institution” was particularly insightful for me. This idea seems to be more prevalent, at least to me, in recent events. For example, during the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s march on Washington President Obama mentioned that there currently exists a “school to prison pipeline.” It makes me wonder if the powers that be, or at least enough to impede progress, are willingly choosing to let the problem fester. The president felt the need to address this issue at the commemoration of a march for fundamental freedoms and rights being withheld through an overt social institution. Are the rights that were won that day now at risk because of this more subtle and hidden pipeline? Is Jim Crow alive and well, but hidden in the school system? Perhaps Herb Sturz needs to direct his attention to this issue because it is definitely one of society’s toughest problems.
Thank you, Spencer, for getting us going on a good discussion. Welcome all to the Vera seminar and blog!
James makes the statement that "it appears this case of gentrification occurred as an unintended consequences of urban development..."
I read that sentence over and over again because something kept bothering me about it. Finally, I realized what was nagging at me. In an effort to express what bothers me, I pose the following questions:
How do we know that certain consequences of urban development and neighborhood gentrification for the poor, working poor, working class are "unintended"?
Why would we assume the consequences are unintended?
Are there documented histories of urban development? Isn't there an historical and social science literature on gentrification that could teach us (and policy makers) what consequences to expect?
If so, shouldn't we expect policy makers to be knowledgeable of those histories and that documentation?
If so, why would we shrug off those effects as "unintended"?
Hello Everyone,
The class discussion on Thursday was very interesting. I heard so many different points of view that I was able to analyze the book on a broader level. A comment was made, maybe by Professor Stein, that triggered a thought which is connected to Spencer's comment on gentrification. (This thought may have been brought up in class but it's weighing on my mind.)
It seems as though that trying to fix one problem can create another. Look at the Bowery Project...the problem of homelessness was being addressed while the possibility of gentrification might occur. Although A Kind of Genius: Herb Sturz and Society's Toughest Problems does not mention gentrification, through reasoning, discussion and analysis, it is a logical conclusion to consider. The flip side will be to not act and the stakeholders will suffer; the homeless stay in their cycle of imprisonment and homelessness, the properties become devalued and the political leaders at that time lose face because they did nothing or very little to help (just to name a few). It seems like either way, a problem emerges but (to paraphrase Sturz) don't just stand there, do something. It is much better to try to fix a problem than to sit idly by allow it to escalate out of control.
All entrepreneurs, whether social or otherwise, need help and as much as many may want to be apolitical, it might not be possible. One point has been reiterated many times and that is the need for networking. Networking opens doors that skill, experience and education alone may not. Sometimes these connections may be political against what is considered ideal. But you work with what you have, work from within the system, when possible, to achieve your goals.
Another lesson reiterated by Sturz experiences is that you need to know when to move on. He started many agencies under Vera, then made them independent when they became self-sufficient. He knew when to let go and let each agency take its flight. Like a proud father, Sturz nurtured his agencies and when they got to age, he released them into the world so they can continue to gain their own experiences and succeed or fail on their own. Although he/Vera would be around to offer guidance and help as necessary.
On another note, during the class discussion on Thursday, I realized that I did not understand the essay prompt as well as I thought I did. Although I looked up the definitions of the words that I did not understand, I guess I understood the definitions but not the application in this essay. A key lesson I've learned is that discussion is very important. No man is an island. Hearing others points of view is very important and helps broaden ideas (for those who are open to it).
Thank you for sharing Spencer. When thinking about Struz and the contribution he has made to our society, especially as the founder of Vera and seeing a snow ball effect with the creation of many other projects and agencies . Spencer, I'm really glad that you brought up the topic of "gentrification" in the lower east side. As a lifelong NYC resident, I was happy to see the homeless off the streets in Brooklyn but now I question if they have been relocated to other parts of the five boroughs and notice the growth of companies setting up projects around my neighborhood.
By reading the journey of Struz and the birth of Vera, it has really inspired me to approach social issues and think about the long term affects. Although I look forward to interning at FedCap/WildCat, seeing Struz's legacy makes me nervous, makes me wonder if I am capable to contribute to social justice.
I am truly excited to begin my internship with FedCap and I look forward to having Prof. Stein, Prof. Reitz, Prof. Waterson, my Vera cohorts and my mentor, Michael helping me along my journey.
Hello Everyone,
We actually cannot be sure that anything is unintended in terms of the effects on people of the poor, working poor, and working class. Certain projects that are implemented are to further the agenda of people, who want to fix the immediate problem at hand. People are not always, as forward thinking to see if the “solution” that one proposes can help everyone. There are issues that come up that no can foresee because at the end of the day people create policy, and they are merely human. In order to analyze these policies critical one must be skeptical because some are willing to say anything as long as someone will listen.
I believe one cannot say consequences are unintended because it is not possible for ideologies not to be present in policy. Professor Waterston posed a question in class that had me reanalyze how I thought about the motives of people, who make policy. There seems to be no way that people’s ideologies do not get in the way. Not every agenda can pass but, for those that do choices have to be made. Even if a person does not pick a position, they are in fact choosing one. If one of the policies hurts the poor, working poor, and working class and helps, the majority the position is already chosen and those consequences are not unintended. The agenda was only to benefit one side of the spectrum.
Thank you Spencer for being the first of us to take on the responsibility of posting on this blog.
The statement Professor Stein made, and Spencer mentions above, about how the building of an empire requires a colonization, really spoke volumes to me, especially when thinking about the maintenance of this empire. If a social entrepreneur’s empire were ultimately made up of the non-profits that were founded throughout his/her career, one would imagine that the ultimate goal of this empire is the elimination of the very social problems its non-profits seek to address. This then begs the question, what happens to the social entrepreneur’s empire when its
non-profits become too successful, i.e. they each completely eliminate the social problems they were created to address?
All non-profits essentially require the existence of a particular social problem. If a non-profit eventually achieved its mission and completely eliminated the social issue it sought to remedy, the continued existence of that organization would be unnecessary.
Keeping this in mind, I would like to pose the following question to you all for
discussion online or in class: When we take into consideration that the solving of the
particular social issue a non-profit seeks to remedy could potentially lead to the end
of that organization’s existence, can non-profits truly be a successful mechanism for
solving social problems, or are they just a tool by which a social entrepreneur’s
empire colonizes specific populations?
Hello Everyone,
Based on our discussion of the book, as well as Professor Stein and Spencer's comment on the the relocation of the homeless, I must be honest and admit that it never crossed my mind beforehand. Though, something that I kept in mind while reading everyone's comments was that in the book they mentioned that the Bowery Project did not intend on changing the homeless population's lifestyle. I think they referred to their addiction to alcohol. Furthermore, I think this goes hand in hand with one of the "tips" mentioned in the book, which was that their solutions to the social problems had to be realistic and simple. Had their goal been to cure the target population's addiction, I think the outcome would have differed greatly. Currently, I feel like the same thing is happening in certain areas of Brooklyn.
On another note, I agree with Jaraed, in that we must be skeptical of the consequences of certain projects because we may not know the true motives, etc. Yet, I feel like we should not lose trust in humanity and believe that these projects are genuine and in the best interest of the target population.
Thank you all for your insightful posts.
Ana
This is such a great discussion! I'm sitting here thinking that I wish we were in class now to discuss in person some of the issues that have been raised. The blog is great because it allows us to continue the conversation from class. But it's also frustrating because it doesn't allow for immediate back and forth conversation that we can have in class!
Well, one thing that strikes me in reading these entries is this: I wonder if we can think in terms of the logic of systems and structures (and how these lead to certain policies and practices) rather than imagining that policies and practices are ONLY vested in human action, agency and motivation. I say this NOT to reduce policy to the logic of structures and systems and leave out human action and motivation, but to ADD to our understanding. I'm specifically thinking about this in relation to Jaraed's and Michael's comments and questions.
I guess another way of saying what I'm thinking about is this: Do social systems and structures that exist prior to individuals who live and work in them, shape the choices that individuals believe are before them? What is the relationship between individual decision-making (and motivation and belief system) and the social world (structures and systems) within which they find themselves (and can potentially change)?
I know this sounds confusing and almost circular. I think the idea of the dialectical relationship between the individual and the larger social may be a useful way to think about this stuff....
Hello everyone!
What strikes me throughout this conversation that is happening on this thread is that there might never be a clean cut way of implementing a program intended to help a population without it hurting another.
This reasoning leads me to the issue of privilege, which I believe plays very heavily into this topic. I say this because within our society, there is an obvious hierarchy which in turn determines the outcome of certain groups. The hierarchy shows itself throughout the duration of the Bowery Project wherein a certain group, who were labeled as "derelicts" (and like James mentioned, promotes the idea of victim blaming) were essentially uprooted from the Bowery and placed elsewhere, making room for gentrification to occur (and therefore making the "derelicts" less important to society).
Professor Waterston has elaborated on the idea of "intention"-- gentrification is not a new issue, nor is it one that will fade over the years-- and I can't help but think of and mention the concept of the "White Savior Complex". The intention being that by "saving" something, guilt might be satiated.
Essentially, although Sturz has implemented incredible change in our social justice system, he has simultaneously contributed to the cycle of oppression in our society. For example, in the Bowery Project, Sturz believed there was an issue that needed to be addressed and set forth on trying to "improve" the Bowery. What is dangerous about this mindset, however well-intentioned it may be, is that through this, the community is robbed of their autonomy. I say this because the "problems" of the community were taken into Sturz's hands and placed elsewhere, hidden from society, and therefore "solved". After this occurred, the Bowery became white-washed (as shown in the photos in the book)-- leading society to believe (consciously or unconsciously) that "the white way, is the right way".
There are thousands of things to unpack in this concept alone, and I could go on and on about the issues of privilege and race that emerge in this book-- I thought that this could be a valuable thing to mention and for us to chew over.
In response to Professor Waterston's questions (if I'm understanding them correctly), I think that social systems that have been in place prior to the people who staff them absolutely shape the way the choices those people make. The mission and goal of the system are in place and those that staff them are there because they are interested in participating in that predetermined goal. Interestingly enough, even if the people who are participating in this "goal" do not necessarily agree with the mission, they would probably still go along with the overall picture. If the norms of the system are clear and enforced, I believe that regardless of what your own personal morals/ideals are, you will, in some ways, conform to fit the norms of the system.
This can be detrimental in some cases when the mission/goal/etc do not evolve to fit the times and stay stringent in their missions (i.e. government on gender roles, religion practices, etc) as they could do more damage to society or a community than good.
Systems cannot run independently from human action/logic. There needs to be some force that implements change when needed and evolves with the times.
Anthony commented on the "school to prison pipeline" comment made by President Obama. I have to admit that I did not watch the speech but Anthony's comment reminded me of the documentary "Waiting for Superman". I would suggest that you guys watch it if you have not done so already. It gives credence to the notion that some people are perceived as destined to fail (and thus is just conjuncture based on race or socio-economic status etc, and as such, mechanisms are put in place to assist the failure or not to reach his/her full potential.
Michael asks an interesting question about the non-profit outgrowing itself. However, I think that as long as there is socio-economic structures, there ill always be need for non-profits. In a capitalist economy, there will ALWAYS be rich and poor (though the gap between the two may vary)so there will always be a need for social issues to be addressed. Although the social issue may be addressed in one community, you can rest assured that there is still a need for that particular non-profit in another.
As to Professor Waterston's question about choices, I believe that the answer is determined by the individual. There are some persons who just accept what is presented before them as "set in stone". they shrug their shoulders thinking that it is what it is. Whatever the reason, whether it is lack of a role model, lack the drive,lack of self confidence etc., some people are just contented to accept what society and others expect. For example, there are those who live in very low income public housing a.k.a "the projects". There is a stigma attached with that environment and as such some people who live there conform to stereotypical behavior of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, all too often I've it said that when seeking a job, be careful not to use an address that is associated with "the projects" as employers will not even consider one's application. Some people may see where they are as a no-win situation and do nothing to advance. There are others though, that will not accept the "norm" and fight to defy the negative outlook that others have. I strongly believe that one's present circumstance does not define who we are and our potential. Our belief system and those with whom we choose to surround ourselves, can play very important roles in shaping the decisions we make, thus affecting our future.
I am blown away by how quickly you have gotten to the meat here. I will reflect back some of your ideas (forgive me if I don’t give individual credit. You are already creating a latticework of ideas that make indistinguishable solo contributions.)
Cui bono? That is Latin for “Who benefits?” When we ask that in a Vera seminar, we are often distraught to find ourselves looking up. Even in social justice work, the biggest beneficiaries are often those who are already privileged (like the property owners in a gentrified neighborhood or the affluent contributors who get tax breaks to build a domestic violence shelter or hire ex-offenders).
If the above is true, how can our work be apolitical and non-ideological? To some degree we are throwing our lot in with the status quo. We are not overthrowing a bad system. We are pragmatically and purposefully working within it. I’m not saying that this is wrong, just that it is. And maybe, like Prof. Waterston said, it’s no accident.
wow! What a great discussion.
It is disheartening to think that social entrepreneurs and NGO's reinforce the unjust systems in place. However, when put in perspective, this is exactly what Sturz was doing. While his intentions were good, his approaches were "pragmatic and apolitical". In other words, he worked within the system and devised solutions that were practical for the powers that be. These solutions did not challenge the policies and ideologies in place, but rather reinforced them by promoting the idea that the privileged can help the less privileged without much inconvenience to themselves. This approach reinforces the injustices by working within them, rather than replacing them and forcing those in power to confront the oppression these systems and policies create and uphold.
Just want to respond to Leena's post. I think that you bring up a very good point about Sturz reinforcing the status-quo. Helping those in need should not be seen as an unnecessary burden but as a duty. Although he probably did it unknowingly, he did help to make the system more effective at hiding the problem as opposed to really fixing them because there is no real way to tell if his programs truly helped those less fortunate (i.e the bowery project). Great point!
This IS a great discussion, and coming in here so late, I will probably have the last (and most likely, unread) word! These are terrific points and ones we will revisit throughout the seminar. I guess in my comment here I am asking you to think about them OUTSIDE the seminar: in your daily experience in your agencies.
One of the reasons why I pause when I hear Sturz's work (for good or ill) talked about as a monolithic entity is that he launched so very many things, (some successful, some less successful, working directly with big government, trying smaller ventures). The variety of your agencies and their own, specific cultures and sensibilities, reflects this heteroglossia that is the Vera spinoffs. As you go to work in your agency, bring some of these questions with you. Are your co-workers/mentors wondering about who benefits? Are there any programs in place to address these questions? Did they think about them once and then forget? Is it a topic freely up for discussion around the watercooler? It would be great to hear about this in seminar from time to time if you have insights.
Simonne, I have watched that documentary and I think about it all of the time. I strongly believe that our system is in dire need of educators and policy makers, etc. who genuinely care about the student population. Our public school system needs a change and unfortunately, many are not willing to move towards it because of many different reasons.
Professor Reitz, the questions you posed above are exactly what I have been thinking about the past few weeks. Though I have only been at Esperanza for a short period of time, I have already begun to take particular notice to how things work. My mentor and I have discussed the problems with NYC public schools on numerous occassions. I hope to be able to discuss them with you all at some point in the semester!
-Ana
Post a Comment